Hales Didn’t Write all the Gospel Topics Essays

It’s time to conclude my interview with Dr. Brian Hales. While it probably isn’t a surprise to most people that Brian played a big role in the polygamy essays at LDS.org, I was surprised to learn that he wasn’t the only author? Who were the other two women, and what role did Brian play? (Listen here.)

That was the first thing that was asked of me on the topic of polyandry. Then I just sent them some general stuff, and I don’t know how many iterations it went through there. Again I was excited to contribute to that. I only looked at the Nauvoo material. I know they had Kathryn Daines help out, and Kathleen Flake I think also are the other two that did the input on plural marriage. I hope they don’t mind me saying that but they wanted outsiders to critique it. If there were problems, they wanted to know about them before they published it.

Are you surprised who wrote these other essays?

I know Brian has often been accused of being an apologist, but I thought this quote was interesting, as we discussed him meeting with people with concerns about polygamy.

Other times when Laura and I meet with people, it’s just I think a box that they have to check as they’re on their way out of the church. “Oh yeah I met with the Hales. They didn’t help.” So they’ve kind of already given up their faith.

The only thing I would say is if you’ve got questions, dive in. I believe there’s somebody in the church who knows more about it than the person who wrote whatever you’re reading on the internet and they still believe. With respect to plural marriage, we certainly have read a lot. It strengthened my belief in Joseph. It didn’t make me like polygamy. I don’t. I never want to do it, but my belief in him as a true prophet has just been strengthened.

What are your thoughts regarding Brian’s statement the he doesn’t like polygamy, and his testimony is strengthened with regards to Joseph Smith being a prophet?

We also discussed the belief by some (Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, the Prices, conservative RLDS members) that Joseph was a monogamist?

For those who have questions, the easiest way probably to detect Denver is he said Joseph didn’t practice polygamy, and then just look at the evidence. I outline it all here. It is true that most of the evidence that Joseph practiced plural marriage is from late sources, but not all of it. The Nauvoo Expositor states right in there that Joseph Smith had a revelation. It was read to the high council. We’ve got testimonials from William Law and Jane Law saying that Joseph was teaching polygamy. These are contemporaneous. There are entries in William Clayton’s journal. John C. Bennett clearly had heard some rumors. I don’t know that he was ever in confidence of Joseph with it. But to say that it’s all old is not true. There are some very important contemporaneous sources.

What do you think of the arguments Brian makes against monogamy? Do you find these arguments compelling?

We also discussed the Temple Lot Case and why it is important to our understanding of polygamy. Don’t forget to sign up for a chance to win a free book, the Parallel Doctrine & Covenants at gospeltangents.com/newsletter.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by Rick B

I am the host of Gospel Tangents Podcast, a resource to learn Mormon History. I also teach college statistics, freelance with many television networks. Reach out to me if you'd like to learn more about a Mormon history topic! I can be reached at gospel tangents at gmail dot com
View all posts by Rick B

Post navigation

61 thoughts on “Hales Didn’t Write all the Gospel Topics Essays”

Wishful thinking.
Brian Hales; Highly informed little patches of wishful thinking it wasn’t that bad.
Snuffer and the waterboys: Less informed inspirational wishful thinking it didn’t happen.
It happened . It sucks. Get over it or get out.

Yes I was surprised by who is writing the essays. Why is it not by someone I sustain as a prophet, seer, or revelator?

My thoughts on the fact that Brian Hales still believes Joseph Smith is a prophet:

Here are the big questions. Did God really command Joseph to take more than one wife or is there a chance Joseph was confused? In heaven does it take a man and a wife to make a spirit baby? Is polygamy going to be practiced in heaven? If polygamy is from God, why are we not practicing it today? If It is not from God, how am I suppose to have any faith that Joseph and Brigham have any authority to speak and act in Gods name? Does God value women beyond there ability to procreate? If things of God edify, what is edifying about polygamy? Why was it done in such secrecy by Joseph if it was commanded by God?

I would love to dive in and find answers to these questions. I have read rough stone rolling, in sacred loneliness, Mormon enigma, and am about to start house full of females. I am not finding anything about polygamy that is edifying and my questions remain unanswered. So what does it mean that Hales still thinks Joseph was a prophet? Does it mean that as a whole his works prove that he had divine guidance and the good he did outweighs the bad? Or does it mean that Hales believes everything Joseph did was divinely inspired?

On a side note, do we still believe that polygamy will be practiced again after the return of Christ? “The holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” BRM definitely thought so.

I think the difference in many cases between those who research polygamy and leave versus those who research polygamy and stay is how polygamy interacts with their contemporary Mormon story.

Polygamy is slowly but surely pushing me out because my family history is a history of polygamy that changed form post manifesto, but didn’t go away. The family patriarchs moved away from church sanctioned marriage to underage women and into sexual abuse of young females in their care. Several were nominally disciplined by the church, but the church never alerted police and the abuse continued. One was actually convicted and incarcerated, but remained a member in good standing.

Polygamy isn’t a distant former doctrine for me. Although I’ve been fortunate that I was not directly victimized by this pattern, the entanglement of church doctrine with patterns of abuse is really hard to work past, and definitely is not testimony affirming.

I feel like I almost broke the internet with my comments in the other discussion chain so I promise to be less controversial moving forward. It was never my intention to just ruffle feathers so apologies to those who were upset by anything I said.

Zach: Wow, what an impressive list of books you’ve read on this topic! #respect

Elizabeth: My heart breaks for you. Reading about your family history made me so incredibly sad.

As for Brian’s statement that he doesn’t like polygamy but his testimony in Joseph Smith is strengthened, I think the obvious answer is that this topic is complicated. I realize there are plenty of men in the church like Angela described who are sexist oafs that talk about having multiple wives in the afterlife. And there have certainly been atrocities committed in the name of polygamy. But there are reasons to believe that polygamy was not as bad as some of the more negative interpretations would have us believe. I won’t go into details as that kind of talk got me in some hot water but Brian seems to be implying such and from what Rick B has written about his discussions with Brian, it sounds like Brian is a fairly open-minded individual.

Snuffer is okay with the idea that Joseph practiced plural marriage, he just doubts it was anything sexual (more about joining the family of God together, or something). He doesn’t believe Joseph was ever able to finish what he was attempting to restore, and others corrupted what Joseph had taught.

Thanks for the clarification Mary Ann! Let me ask what might be a very dumb question. Didn’t Joseph Smith procreate with some of his polygamous wives? I don’t even understand how Snuffer could make this argument. Was Emma the only wife that bore Joseph’s offspring or is Snuffer claiming that someone else impregnated Joseph’s polygamous wives? And why would these women be sealed to Joseph if they were never meant to be wives unto him in a more common sense?

It’s interesting to me that Daynes and Flake reviewed the essays. I’m not familiar enough with their work to detect their fingerprints quite as much as Hales’. Does anyone more familiar with their work have an idea of what kind of influence they might have exerted? I’m not surprised that big names in the field reviewed them since my sense is that major criticisms of the essays are not based so much in factual errors as in the apologetic tone. It’s admittedly been a long time since I’ve read them, but my memory is that they were technically correct even if I thought the facts were being presented in a way that obscured certain aspects of the situation.

Adam – There were rumors that several of JS’s wives had his children and several claims, but modern genetics has disproved them all. Which is interesting as clearly he wasn’t incapable (Emma had nine(?) babies) and the wives themselves claimed the relationships were sexual. Here’s an interesting podcast with the gentleman that did much of the genetic work on the supposed chidlren. http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2016/10/26/dna-detective-work-ugo-perego/ (If the link gets cut, google Ugo Perego LDS Perspectives and you should be able to find it.)

“And why would these women be sealed to Joseph if they were never meant to be wives unto him in a more common sense?” That’s a million-dollar question that’s been part of the debate for over a century.

Maybe it’s sexist, but I’m glad both men and women were involved in the plural marriage essays given the emotional upheaval it causes members today (to both genders).

“What are your thoughts regarding Brian’s statement the he doesn’t like polygamy, and his testimony is strengthened with regards to Joseph Smith being a prophet?” It’s interesting how we all react so differently. My experience is different. I loved how Lindsay Hansen Park put it once. She pointed out that people expect context to make things better, but sometimes context ends up making things worse. I’ve found it’s counterproductive for me to dwell on this topic. I encounter it often with family history research, so I can’t always choose to opt out. As far as JS, I can accept him as a prophet for other reasons, but when it comes to this stuff, there are a whole lot of question marks. Luckily he’s never been one of those foundational elements of my testimony.

Thank you both for answering my question! I don’t believe Joseph Smith was monogamous but if you put a gun to my head, I would choose that explanation over the more cynical explanation that Joseph Smith instituted polygamy as a way to expand men’s sexual gratification and offspring. The numbers just don’t add up right? Joseph Smith had 9 children all by the same woman. How is it even possible to defend the argument that women were simply chattel under Joseph Smith’s vision of what polygamy ought to be? I got killed for suggesting this in the other discussion chain but it kind of seems like there is definitely other forms of polygamy in which the wives are not either A) glorified concubines or B) glorified nannies in a platonic relationship. Right? What am I missing?

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, {Bennett adds: “including the endowments for the dead now both for the living and the dead}…or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law…

What’s the wisest course? The whole question about how Wilford Woodruff reached the conclusion long before, long before the fight with the United States government, the Edmunds-Tucker Act and confiscation of all our property. Well the wisest course is what we’ve been doing since Nauvoo, since baptism for the dead, and now endowments for the living in Nauvoo and now endowments for the dead in St. George. Are we going to give up all this for what you would have to say in his mind was a temporary subset of the Law of Eternal Marriage?

If I will command, I will, said the Lord, on plural marriage; if I do command—in other words it’s not a permanent law. The Book of Mormon makes that very clear. Wilford Woodruff understood that. It has its place at a certain time. Are we going to give up these eternal doctrines of redemption for the dead for a temporary subset of eternal marriage? Which is the wisest course?

Was he selling down river Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor? Not in his mind. He received clear revelation that, how can we hold on to what they taught and still make a major change? It was tremendously courageous to do what he did. It took a man like Wilford Woodruff because he was bathed in the water of plural marriage in that sense. He had five wives. He’d suffered with all the rest of them to live it day by day. He wasn’t going to give that up for any little thing. But it says he received revelation from the Lord saying time is up for this one, but redemption for the dead is an eternal law. Temple work is an eternal thing. Plural marriage is a temporary subset of an eternal marriage law. It’s very, very important though. We gave our lives for it. We went to prison for it. We fought everything for it.

It is my observation that you tend to dominate a conversation with endless questions. While I know you are new at this, I encourage you to read up on polygamy before machine-gunning questions constantly. Here’s what I’ve written on the topic: https://mormonheretic.org/category/polygamy/

Zach, I can’t speak for Hales, although I believe he has a similar belief system to me. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, but I also believe he was flawed. Unlike Brian, polygamy gives me the heebee-jeebees, and it does not strengthen my testimony. On the one hand, I do think the sealing ordinance is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, I tend to think polygamy is not of God, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this was a false revelation. Here’s what I wrote in 2009, and I haven’t changed my thinking very much, although I am much more informed than I was 8 years ago.

I have to say that from what I know so far about polygamy, I just do not believe it to be an inspired doctrine, just as I do not believe the priesthood ban was an inspired doctrine, as seen from my earlier post on that topic. Now that may cause some people to ask if I believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet? No.

I’m sure that seems like a big contradiction, but I have a more complex view of prophets. I think they can make errors, even in revelation. I don’t believe a prophet is infallible. I believe that when we look at Biblical prophets, we find errors in revelation, bad conduct, and pagan influences as well. For example, I don’t believe God commanded genocide with Joshua, I question Abraham’s conduct with Hagar (and circumcision), and Jonah was a bigot towards the people of Nineveh (which deserves a future post.) In short, I believe God uses fallible men to give revelations to.

So, while I respect Joshua “Choose you this day whom ye will serve”, Abraham, “the father of monotheism”, Jonah “swallowed by a great fish”, I can respect Joseph Smith as well. Just as the former three were prophets, so is Joseph. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but my testimony of polygamy is completely different. I can accept that Joseph spoke many inspired things, translated the Book of Mormon, and performed many miracles. I can also accept that I don’t believe polygamy was inspired by God, just as the Curse of Cain was used by so many people to justify slavery.

“I’m not familiar enough with their work to detect their fingerprints quite as much as Hales’. Does anyone more familiar with their work have an idea of what kind of influence they might have exerted?”

Zach: “Yes I was surprised by who is writing the essays. Why is it not by someone I sustain as a prophet, seer, or revelator?” That would be disastrous. They aren’t historians by a long stretch, and the work done by historians is very time-consuming. New information is often being culled (such as the DNA testing that disproved JS’s parentage.

Adam: We don’t mind well-informed controversy. Mormon Heretic’s recap is more on point. I second his recommendation of his materials on polygamy if you aren’t inclined to read Rough Stone Rolling or Mormon Enigma or listen to Year of Polygamy, all of which are a great starting point.

I was excited to see Flake was part of the essay, although I’m still not remotely thrilled with the outcome. Leaders seem to be in a Catch-22 for three reasons: 1) If polygamy wasn’t divine, it throws all church authority into question (for some, not necessarily for me, but for some), 2) many of them (and many in the church) are descended from polygamists, so its tantamount to throwing grandparents under the bus, and 3) a few of our current church leaders are de facto polygamists (sealed to multiple women through second marriages).

Thanks for the responses.
MH
I am fighting to keep a testimony of Joseph Smith, but some days it feels like a losing battle. I fully understand that Joseph could have made a mistake, but it does seem from early on, at least 1829 when he saw the words of Jacob appear on the rock in his hat, that the thought of possibly practicing polygamy was crossing his mind. The first verse of 132 says that Joseph inquired of the Lord why other prophets were justified in taking other wives. Why in the hell was he even asking? I guess I am having trouble how you can believe in some of the D&C but not believe in this section. Do the members of this church, who are required to pledge allegiance to the twelve apostles and first presidency and sustain them as prophets seers and revelators as a prerequisite to getting in the temple, have the right to sit back and decide which revelations are from God and which ones are not? If it is not from God, why does our sealing ordinance still ooze with words that take us right back to polygamy? It is a lot like Brother Sky believing that the B o M is inspired fiction. I appreciate that you have reconciled these things in your head, but your method just does not work for me.
How many members do you think could walk this tight rope you are walking? If the brethren came out and did what Pearson is advocating and denounce Polygamy, said it was all a terrible misunderstanding and none of our first 7 prophets that practiced polygamy were able to discern that 60 year old men bedding 16 year olds was wrong, how many members would still have faith that they are being led by prophets?

Rick B
When I said why are we not practicing it today I meant why did God allow for men to shut it down? Why did he start something that was doomed to fail? What kind of a weak God is watching over his chosen people? Even if the time was not right due to political pressure, I think the world is largely ready for it to happen again if it truly is the law of God. Ironically, the homosexuals have done all the heavy lifting to clear the way. Can you imagine the uproar that would take place if polygamy was started again? I guess we would see who truly has a testimony of living prophets.

“how many members would still have faith that they are being led by prophets?” This calls to mind the aphorism ‘Catholics are taught the Pope is infallible, but none of them believe it; Mormons are taught their leaders are fallible, but none of them believe it.’ On the upside, when you read the OT, it’s hard not to conclude that prophets are incredibly human and flawed.

Zach, I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t expect everyone to believe like me. (I picked “Heretic” as a moniker for a reason!)

“I guess I am having trouble how you can believe in some of the D&C but not believe in this section.”

All Mormons are cafeteria Mormons on certain points. Some with diet Coke, some with wearing garments–I just happen to have some different beliefs about the scriptures. Once again, I’m appalled at Abraham for trying to kill his son, and him sending Hagar out in the wilderness to die. Circumcision was a pagan practice long before Abraham. I reject these things as God-Inspired. I feel a bit like creating a Thomas Jefferson Bible where I throw out the stuff I don’t like and keep the stuff I do. I know that’s heretical, but it’s my life, my belief system, and I’ve got free agency to believe as I choose. It’s good not to be trammeled, as Joseph Smith would say.

“Do the members of this church, who are required to pledge allegiance to the twelve apostles and first presidency and sustain them as prophets seers and revelators as a prerequisite to getting in the temple, have the right to sit back and decide which revelations are from God and which ones are not?”

Yes members get to decide, and I’ve decided. Let’s not forget that the original Declaration on Marriage (section 101) was de-canonized in favor of adding 132. The Lectures on Faith were decanonized. Brigham Young refused to canonize the Book of Abraham–that wasn’t canonized until after his death. The CoC never canonized 132, Lectures on Faith, Abraham, and de-canonized Baptism for the Dead. Use your free agency. Hold fast to that which is good. Jettison the rest. You don’t see most Christians saying “Women should be silent in church”, or justifying slavery or polygamy even though those are canonized in the Bible. You don’t see people selling daughters for marriage, but the Law of Moses regulates lots of things. Scriptures change. You have your free agency. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or praiseworthy, seek after those things. But don’t pierce your slave’s ear to show he’s yours forever, even though that’s biblical. Slavery is just plain crap, and not God inspired at all.

And if polygamy stinks to high heaven, abandon it like the CoC. A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet, and the CoC has rejected lots of Joseph’s revelations and kept others. It’s not unprecedented, although I freely admit that people in the LDS pews would think my views were heretical, hence the name. But I have free agency to believe what I want, and I’m exercising it. I reject the notion that “it’s all true or it’s all false.” Nothing in life is that simple, so why follow that piece of bad advice?

Look, I don’t believe everything Brian Hales said, but I do think his ideas regarding 14-year old Helen Mar Kimball have merit. And certainly this idea that there are no offspring from other women might indicate that sexual relations were much less frequent than critics allege. I hate polygamy, don’t get me wrong, but I think it’s unfair to assume that all 30+ wives were sexual. I do think some were sexual, but Brian has caused me to reconsider some of my previous assumptions regarding teen brides. Jury is still out on polyandry, but that was food for thought for me., and he did cause me to re-examine my assumptions about Fanny Alger, but I still lean towards sexual relations due to the “dirty, nasty affair.”

“When I said why are we not practicing it today I meant why did God allow for men to shut it down? Why did he start something that was doomed to fail?”

Let me jump in on this because I have my theory. Denver Snuffer is a terrible historian, but I do like his theory that Joseph conflated sealing with polygamy. I do think Joseph was trying to justify adultery and make it spiritual. Did he shake the angel’s hand? I doubt it. Could this have been one of the devil’s angels? I hold out the possibility. Somehow he convinced others. I think the John Taylor unpublished revelation about polygamy is not God-inspired, though obviously the fundamentalists sure like it.

“Even if the time was not right due to political pressure…”

Perhaps it was God trying to correct the wrongs of Joseph’s polygamy. The scriptures say that Lamanites (and gentiles) were used to scourge the Nephites (and Israelites.) I think the political pressure was needed to abandon the ungodly practice of polygamy, and I think God used the Civil Rights movement to help get rid of the priesthood ban.

Yes, my beliefs are not mainstream, but I hope you can look outside the box a little.

I am so sorry, but I tried several tims to listen to the podcast and couldn’t get it going. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.

What are Brian’s arguments against polygamy? I can’t believe I even read that question in this post. I have to know what he could possibly find wrong with it. Can anyone help me get the podcast going??

Are you asking why he doesn’t like it? Brian believes polygamy is an eternal polygamy, but in a different conversation he has said,

Of course on earth, polygamy is not fair. It’s unequal. You could say it’s sexist if you want, on earth. But I don’t think that we know anything about eternal marriage, and we certainly don’t know anything about eternal plural marriage. So to assume that that’s a bad thing, that it victimizes women, and to assume that women should fear that is to fear unknown things.

God has promised us everlasting joy, a fullness of joy. His plan is a plan of happiness. I understand why even my own daughter is worried about this eternal polygamy idea. She’s told her husband, “You’re going to die before me because I’m not going to die before you and have you remarry so I’m a polygamist in heaven.” She’s told him that. I get that.

But at the same time, God has told us. This is not speculation. It’s a fullness of joy. It’s eternal happiness. It’s exaltation for those who attain it. I think we just have to take faith in these things that are promises, and try not to fear the unknown. It may still be hard, and it is additional faith. I understand that, but I believe that whatever it is, and I have no desire to be a polygamist here or there. But I do believe that a woman is not going to feel victimized in eternity if she obtains exaltation. I think we just have to hold onto that faith, that that is true and then trust God. I don’t agree with this idea that we know what eternal polygamy is and that we know that it is bad and that we should fear it here today.

Zach: I was going to quote you but then I realized the quote was too long. That’s a roundabout way of saying your entire last post was fantastic. Well said.

“when you read the OT, it’s hard not to conclude that prophets are incredibly human and flawed.”

Amen! Being a prophet is a job that happens to require spiritual gifts to perform the specified duties. But it’s still a job.

“Perhaps it was God trying to correct the wrongs of Joseph’s polygamy. The scriptures say that Lamanites (and gentiles) were used to scourge the Nephites (and Israelites.) I think the political pressure was needed to abandon the ungodly practice of polygamy”

That’s a great theory. I’m really looking forward to reading your blog posts on polygamy. Thank you for taking the time to compile your well-earned knowledge on the subject and for giving me the link. I know I got in trouble for asking too many questions and not doing enough research beforehand but I do want to ask you one question. Based on all of the information you have gathered, in your opinion, is it possible that Joseph received revelation that polygamy can be a good thing, with the context being prophets of old who had multiple wives? And then based off of that general revelation, Joseph ran with the information he received and instituted something that was not meant to be instituted at that time?

Re: “60 year old men bedding 16 year olds,” that is definitely what was happening in my family in the Utah period. I am descended from more than one teen plural bride of a much older man. In fact, the ancestor who went to jail for raping a minor was living in early post manifesto Utah at the time of the crime. The victim was his wife’s younger sister. The feds locked him up for it, and the family shunned him, but the church coerced her into marrying him as a post manifesto plural wife upon his release from prison.

Tl;dr whether or not Joseph was sexually involved with his underage plural wives, the church leaders who came after him most certainly did, so it’s absolutely part of the legacy of Polygamy.

“at least 1829 when he saw the words of Jacob appear on the rock in his hat, that the thought of possibly practicing polygamy was crossing his mind. The first verse of 132 says that Joseph inquired of the Lord why other prophets were justified in taking other wives. Why in the hell was he even asking?”

I don’t know if you saw my interview with Mark Staker, but I nearly fell off my chair when he said he thought Black Pete was responsible for introducing polygamy to Kirtland in 1830! See

Thanks Rick, I appreciate you posting the excerpt from the podcast – I enjoyed watching and learning. I realize now I misunderstood when you wrote that Brian Hales has arguments against monogamy. I thought you meant he was against it as a form of marriage rather than his arguments against those who claim Joseph was a monogamist. You’ve done a great job with this series. I appreciate your efforts in doing so, along with Bro. Hales’.

Adam: “is it possible that Joseph received revelation that polygamy can be a good thing, with the context being prophets of old who had multiple wives? And then based off of that general revelation, Joseph ran with the information he received and instituted something that was not meant to be instituted at that time?” Joseph’s statements indicate that he asked the question based on reading about polygamy in the OT, but what he actually practiced bore very little resemblance to what is in the OT (which is varied). He mentioned kings David & Solomon having multiple wives, but these were really concubines (sex wives because they were powerful men). King David was in fact lustful in coercing Bathsheba. Abraham as an example kind of fails because Sarah gave him her servant, meaning it was 1) her idea / choice, and 2) in essence, she “owned” the offspring because it was her servant. Jacob’s polygamy was kind of similar, with a twist. He was tricked into marrying the wrong sister, so he still married the one he wanted, and then both sisters “gave him” their servants to give him more offspring, but again, this was their choice, not his, and added (in a weird way) to their own status as wives. The servant / wives were not of equal status.

That’s not what JS did in reality. I think Bushman’s explanation that JS was trying to figure out the sealing ordinance is as good an explanation as any faithful explanation, and that he wanted to increase his kin rather than satiate his libido. The Fanny Alger situation is unique (from the earlier post) in that it predates the other marriages by several years, and he got “caught.” Emma had no prior knowledge. But his subsequent marriages often included a proposal and/or asking the father for the daughter (as was often customary at that time in marriage proposals).

Angela: For what it’s worth, that was my favorite post I’ve read so far on this entire site. Thank you so much for the response!

I agree that what Joseph Smith actually practiced had very little resemblance to ancient polygamy, even though I do believe the 9-0 child ratio (Emma’s offspring vs combined offspring of all other wives) makes the libido case basically impossible to make, even if one were to decide that his relationship with Fanny Alger was an affair. Sex produces kids before too long, especially when the man can clearly procreate without any issues.

I also wouldn’t ever defend the bad behavior of the many other polygamists that followed Joseph. It just makes me wonder if, whether through trying to fulfill the sealing ordinance or through learning that polygamy was okay in certain circumstances and then running wild with that news, the institution of polygamy started off with well meaning (-ish) intentions. Joseph and the early saints were exploding in knowledge and spiritual “experimentation” for lack of a better word and there were plenty of well-meaning mistakes that were made (Law of Consecration).

Polygamy slips too easily into some messy messy business, even for people like me who suspect it’s perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. With polygamy so quickly going off the rails, if it even ever started off well to begin with, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by the atrocities. A bad system with endless potential for problems implemented within a closed off society (particularly once the saints settled in Utah) equals lots and lots of ugliness. That’s not an excuse for bad behavior though.

The one thing history shows is that polygamy emerges as a byproduct of male wealth and status. There aren’t a lot of poor folks sitting around saying, “Let’s see how we can get some more mouths to feed, stat!” But that’s another difference between JS and BY’s polygamy. JS didn’t financially support his “wives.” They were sealings but not cohabitants (again, Fanny as an exception since she was a servant in the house).

BY on the other hand took great delight in boasting about his attractiveness as a husband able to support more wives than he could name. He considered the number of wives as evidence of his superiority to those poor fellows with only one wife. From BY in Journal of Discourses: “I could prove to this congre[ga]tion that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men. . . . When brother Thomas thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife.” (Fairmormon says this quote is taken out of context and not evidence of boasting. Brigham Young was explaining that living the gospel made you more physically attractive, and Thomas Marsh as an apostate had lost his looks. I suppose if you think that’s normal chit-chat, whatever. To me, them’s fighting words).

Brigham Young said a lot of really weird stuff. He’s the anti-Mormon literature Santa Claus. I don’t get Brigham Young’s polygamous behavior……like at all. I just don’t get it.

Society becomes more and more advanced as time passes. With the way polygamy has been instituted throughout human history (and more or less practiced in the early church), there isn’t much to defend it, even putting aside the ugliest atrocities. But my suspicion is that polygamy will be practiced in more sophisticated times, particularly in the afterlife (and possibly the Millennium) . But that would be more of a true polygamy rather than strictly polygyny as taught now. I’ve said before that my rule of thumb is that if something doesn’t make sense in this life then it won’t make sense in the afterlife. HOWEVER, the one exception is sex and sexuality.

We forget that sex drive and sexual attraction play a very very specific role in mortality that may not apply at all in the afterlife. We aren’t sexual beings prior to puberty and we oftentimes aren’t sexual beings later in life (with older couples, it’s common for the wife to still have a sex drive but the husband’s sex drive is completely gone for good, ironically). So even though there is no reason to believe we won’t be able to have sex in the afterlife, there may be reason to believe sex drive and sexual attraction and all the earthly jealousy and possessiveness surrounding these drives will basically be non-factors. In that case, those of us in good marriages will obviously want to be sealed to our spouses, who we’ve spent our entire lives bonding with but plenty of people may want to pair up in all kinds of combinations since they’ll essentially be glorified BFFs.

I know, this is a wild theory that’s super in the weeds so to speak but figured no one would be hurt if I threw it out there.

“figured no one would be hurt if I threw it out there” I don’t think that’s a good assumption given the history of polygamy in Mormonism. One thing I’ve found is that for Mormon women, talking about polygamy is not just some fun party game or theory. It creates some very real pain in the here and now. If I were a dudebro (such as yourself), I wouldn’t touch the topic with a ten foot pole, much less with such a cavalier attitude. A little empathy should show you that it’s not so easily dismissed or reconciled for many women, and it creates anxiety. Now, Brian Hales’ perspective (as on an early thread) is “Don’t worry your pretty little heads about it,” because while he agrees that it sucks in mortality, it will all be fine in the eternities. IOW, “these are not the droids you are looking for.” But that’s cold comfort to those of us paying attention to how women are viewed in the church.

I knew an Institute teacher once who made an interesting remark at a dinner party once–this wasn’t said to college kids. He said the more he studied the concept of all things in common of the United Order and how it’s the Law of the CK that he wondered if spouses would be in common too. He postulated that glorified and resurrected beings would be flawlessly beautiful and love is unspeakable and incomprehensible (to us here in mortality) there, so perhaps everyone will be in love with everyone. He said he didn’t think there’d be orgies or anything so debasing, but he wondered if people would be able to pair off in various holy ways throughout eternity. He added that he thought women by nature would be more willing to do this, but men by nature would not be able to handle sharing someone they love. He quoted how God’s ways are not our ways so he thought the realities of that kingdom would be quite different than what little we imagine it to be from the limited knowledge we’ve been given here on earth. He was a ver well respected leader in his work and in the ward and stake.

I felt kind of sick inside listening to the discussion. I still do when I think back on it. Sometimes I just can’t handle our peculiar past, being a peculiar people now, and an even more peculiar afterlife. Brian Hales speaks of having faith that it will be a place of joy and happiness. But the weird things, well, weird me out. I don’t see what’s so great about peculiarity.

” is it possible that Joseph received revelation that polygamy can be a good thing…?”

No.

While most Christian churches ignore most of the Old Testament, I think Joseph tried to encompass the OT. This is a mistake. Brian Hales stated there is NOTHING in the Old Testament to indicate polygamy was a commandment.

My study of the Old Testament shows it was just as big of a cluster f*** as it was for the early Mormon church. It is as god inspired as slavery, meaning not at all.

The only exception to that is in the case where a spouse dies. My sister died, leaving 4 kids behind. Her husband remarried a good woman with 4 kids of her own. I don’t mind it in that situation, because I think it might work in the eternities, but that is the only case I can see it working. All cases of polygamy in the Bible and church history show it is unwise in mortality and I see nothing useful from a theological point of view.

Women were chattel in the Old Testament, and it was rife with abuse.

Elizabeth, I hear you and understand your point of view. It makes me sad and I offer no rebuttal.

Zach, you asked how many people believe like I do. I estimate that the majority of the MHA and Sunstone crowd who are active LDS. Of course that is a minority of Mormons but not an insignificant number either.

“Sex produces kids before too long, especially when the man can clearly procreate without any issues.”

Kind of. Practicing the rhythm method gets exponentially more effective (and easier) when there are 30 wives to choose from, because biologically speaking, women are only fertile about 7-10 days per month. It’s not remotely difficult to imagine childless, sexually active polygyny. The number of live births per woman is significantly lower in polygyny than it is in monogamy anyhow.

Additionally, five of the nine children born to Emma died before age two. 1800s frontier life was rough in a lot of ways, and children died from a variety of causes. The pattern seen in the Smith births is not inconsistent with that commonly seen in couples who had contracted syphilis, which was astonishingly common at that point in history, especially when paired with the still births and infant deaths among Joseph’s plural wives. This doesn’t mean he had syphilis, but it does mean the issue is a *lot* more complex than “Sex produces kids before too long, especially when the man can clearly procreate​ without any issues.” And we haven’t even started in on the rumored use of abortifacient plants among Joseph’s plural wives, or the rather extensive history of sheepskin and cow intestine prophylactics that have been in use in Western society since the 1400s at the latest.

“I don’t think that’s a good assumption given the history of polygamy in Mormonism. One thing I’ve found is that for Mormon women, talking about polygamy is not just some fun party game or theory. It creates some very real pain in the here and now. If I were a dudebro (such as yourself), I wouldn’t touch the topic with a ten foot pole, much less with such a cavalier attitude. A little empathy should show you that it’s not so easily dismissed or reconciled for many women, and it creates anxiety.”

That’s a fair point. I get where you are coming from to a degree, although I would counter that I don’t think because many have had bad experiences with polygamy or associate terrible things with polygamy that those individuals “own” polygamy as a topic of discussion. I know this idea that based on a person’s race or gender or income level they are not allowed to speak on entire subject matters is popular right now but I find such censorship to be pretty repugnant. There is a difference between asking for respect and sensitivity versus outright censorship of entire swaths of the population.

I have a profound respect for the research you and Mormon Heretic and Zach and many others have done. Not just on the subject of polygamy but many other topics as well. I’m humbled quite frankly by the collective diligence and wisdom of the group in many respects. Sometimes I come at subjects from a new angle. Some people may find my ideas to be worthy of quick dismissal but it seems others find them worth their time. That’s perfectly fine. But I’d like to think that ideas, even outside this group’s box, would be at least tepidly welcomed. If this website is an unofficial online therapy group for people who have been victims of polygamy, then you have my deepest apologies. I’m not saying this sarcastically. My heart absolutely goes out to victims of any kind and if this site acts as a de facto online therapy group for victims then I feel like a fool. But if this site is first and foremost a place for discussion, then I would hope free and open speech would be happily and vigorously defended.

I never want to act cavalier about anyone’s hurt feelings. But being a victim of polygamy or having a keen knowledge of atrocities committed in the name of polygamy does not mean you have the right to censor all ideas related to the general topic of polygamy. Hopefully we can agree on that. And any online discussion of polygamy, outside of an actual therapy group, may contain comments that some find uncomfortable and even painful. Unless I’m being directly insensitive (i.e. clearly showing a disregard or lack of concern for polygamist atrocities), I’d like to not be blamed for the crimes committed by others, even if I share similar demographic qualities with them. That’s just my stance. As always, thanks for your well thought out post.

There’s a difference between being censored and being asked to consider that you are not an authority on the topic at hand. Accepting that someone else’s research or lived experience gives them greater insight is not the same as being silenced.

I would like to know who was responsible for the cowardly “several months before her 15th birthday” and “carefully worded denials” phrasing. Was that something Hales or one of the other contributors originally submitted, or did someone higher up insert that?

Adam,
“Sometimes I come at subjects from a new angle. Some people may find my ideas to be worthy of quick dismissal but it seems others find them worth their time. That’s perfectly fine. But I’d like to think that ideas, even outside this group’s box, would be at least tepidly welcomed.”

I’m speaking only for me, but I would imagine many people here would agree. Your ideas are not new. It is not novel to claim that Joseph Smith was inspired to institute polygamy, but made some mistakes along the way. It is not new to claim that polygamy, when done correctly is not a giant mess. It is human nature to assume that our group of people, in our day and age is so much more enlightened and evolved than any other that if we try the same thing that has been failing for the history of humankind it will be different this time. I have heard it all before. That may be part of the misunderstanding here. You are saying everything that every middle aged male seminary/Sunday School teacher taught me growing up. You’re getting a negative reaction because you’re saying all the things people have always tried to say to convince women that polygamy in eternity will be a grand eternal reward (perhaps you have different motives, but the ideas are still the same). It may be a new idea that you have never heard before, but it is not new to women who have been trying to understand polygamy their entire lives.

Rick B.
I’m a bit confused on something that maybe you can clarify. Is Hales claiming that he only wrote some parts of the polygamy essays and other people wrote others? Or is he claiming that he wrote them and then other people were consulted to review for any issues that may be contained in them? Maybe if I listened to the interview I would know this, but I’m a reader not a listener. Thanks!

*I would like to know who was responsible for the cowardly “several months before her 15th birthday” and “carefully worded denials” phrasing. Was that something Hales or one of the other contributors originally submitted, or did someone higher up insert that?*

Pete, after talking with Brian Hales, Paul Reeve, and another person (to be revealed in the future–stay tuned!) the process sounds pretty similar. They all wrote 40-80 page essays for the LDS Church, and then a committee reduced them to 8 pages or so. Due to the compressing, it was a committee that used the scholars as the primary source and the committee revised these essays. I highly doubt Brian inserted the phrases you find objectionable. It was probably someone on the Correlation Committee would be my guess.

EBK, I am putting together a transcript of the Hales interview, and I think it should be available this weekend. I know some people prefer to read than listen. If anyone is interested in other transcripts, they are available on Kindle or Paperback format at http://amzn.to/2sQMa6m

Brian was a little vague as to which essay he wrote. The entire quote is quite long or I would post it. But given the three people I’ve talked to, it sounds the process was pretty similar. Scholars write a long essay, a committee compresses it. It could be that they combined parts from several essays a put them together, but I agree with an earlier comment that said

[Kathryn Daynes] book specializes in the Utah period, so I’m pretty sure she did that essay. Brian mentioned he did polyandry and the Nauvoo period. By elimination, that means Kathleen Flake must have been responsible for the other one.

Mormon Heretic and Elizabeth responded to comments/questions I made and I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge both of their excellent responses. I especially liked Elizabeth’s point about the rhythm method. That would be awfully sneaky of Joseph Smith to go so far as to employ the rhythm method with all 30 of his wives, particularly since I would assume he would claim there was nothing wrong with impregnating a wife not named Emma if he was in fact having sexual relations with all of these wives. I find your theory to be a little bit of a stretch but still a very worthy idea to consider. Well said. And yes Mormon Heretic, the OT is a hot mess but for what it’s worth, I do find a lot of nuggets of wisdom contained therein. I believe the people of the OT are just much more primitive and that helps explain a lot of the madness. Society wasn’t terribly sophisticated back then and so the morality of the day was weird.

This will be my last post on this chain (I promise) and unfortunately, I have not read a single word beyond my last comments so my apologies to anyone who responded directly to it. I want to resist the temptation of getting distracted from the purpose of this post and I want to keep my promise to not say anymore on this chain so as to not be a distraction or hindrance to the current discussion. With that introduction, I couldn’t help but notice that my last post garnered 3 thumbs down and only a single thumbs up. I realize the numbers are very small but three times more dislikes than likes on a post railing against censorship??? Really???
Maybe people perceived my tone to be mean or angry and that explains the response. That was not my intended tone but I realize ascertaining someone’s vocal inflection is notoriously tricky via written word. Anyway, may I make a suggestion for the entire group?

I very very strongly recommend that the members of this site decide once and for all what kind of discourse you all want to have moving forward. Forget what the site has been. What do you want the discourse to be from now on? I’m sure Mormon Heretic or others will say I’m lazy because there is some huge disclaimer on the home page I missed or something. But putting my personal shortcomings aside, whatever they may be, why doesn’t everyone vote on what type of site you guys want Wheat and Tares to be? That way everyone can be on the exact same page. The 4 options from which to choose are below but it would obviously be most beneficial to include these options and a poll that people can vote on in a totally separate post rather than buried in this discussion chain. The options would have to be carefully worded and hopefully everyone is fine with the descriptions I have used below:

OPTION A: Wheat and Tares is a site that above all else fights vigorously for free and open dialogue. Ideas on sensitive topics may be shared at any time that might cause pain and discomfort to multiple participants or even all participants for that matter. But free speech is a value we hold dearly and we are not willing to tolerate bullying or censorship of any kind, even regarding words and ideas we do not approve of. We obviously reserve the right to take action if someone regularly posts profanity or if someone very clearly has no interest in fruitful back-and-forth discussion but instead incessantly posts self-serving propaganda or if someone makes a continuous habit of saying mean, malicious comments about other discussion participants. We vow to give all participants a long leash and the benefit of the doubt and we promise that outside the scope of these three exceptions, we will happily defend the free exchange of all ideas on this site.

OPTION B: Wheat and Tares is a site that, while allowing for discussion on a variety of topics, prides itself as an unofficial safe place for people who are victims of polygamy, abuse, alienation over doctrinal differences, etc. We strive to use language that at all times is purposely sensitive to those who may be triggered by certain ideas being discussed. We acknowledge that this will lead to varying levels of censorship but that is the price we all must pay to serve our expressed mission, which is to provide a safe haven for those who have been victimized by others. No man can serve two masters and when push comes to shove, the master we will serve is respect and sensitivity in the words we choose so as to guarantee no harm befalls those among us who have been severely harmed by others.

OPTION C: Wheat and Tares is a site that serves a close knit group of online friends. We are happy to add new friends at any time but understand that with all friendship groups, the #1 criteria for inclusion is that we like you. If we find that we do not like your ideas then you are not welcome to comment further or you will be asked to drastically alter the nature of your posts moving forward. Not everyone can be friends with each other and this is a closed off friendship group that just happens to be public. No hard feelings but we like hanging out with our buddies and we shouldn’t be made to feel bad if we want to bounce around ideas with a bunch of people who we already more or less agree with and get along with. It’s nothing personal to anyone else. We just want to chill with our friends.

OPTION D: Wheat and Tares is a site that espouses free and open speech and for the most part, we do a pretty good job. But the reality is, we don’t actually want true free and open speech. We reserve the right to bully or censor other people whose ideas we don’t like and whose intentions we may be suspicious of. We do not feel the need to perfectly justify our bullying or censorship. Sometimes, actions just feel right and as of now it feels right to say we are for free speech while lashing out whenever we deem appropriate, which will hopefully not be very frequently because such actions, while feeling right at the time, also kind of feel unpleasant too. Nobody is perfect and that would include all of us. We reserve the right to behave in this manner and everyone should be aware of this upfront.

Obviously, Option D does not sound as good as the other options but it needs to be included because it’s the catch-all option that would be the alternative to Options A through C. Honestly, I don’t think there is a best answer between options A, B, and C. It’s all about what the group wants. Each option has its pros and cons. So let’s have an official vote! What do you guys say?

adamloumeau – I’m still undecided on weather you merit the same attention I give Howard, but it’s a bit weird to try to garner a movement to change how the blog works when you’re both new to the blog and not part of the blog admins. Incredibly arrogant, to say the least. If you want a better reaction to your posts, try for smaller comments, so we can vote for each on their merits. (Please do not individual comments for each of your voting options above. As I said, it’s a kinda tacky move)

I’m glad you have an interest in discussing polygamy, it’s history and possibilities for the future. Maybe you should try sending a guest post with your views on it? My personal opinion is that it can be done, but previous attempts had the weight of patriarchy on them. I don’t think the Church would go back to it even if it became legal in the US; it’s just too easy to abuse. It’s also really hard to convince anyone who has so many bad experiences with something that it could be good, akin to trying to convince someone who has only seen or been in abusive relationships that a relationship can be good. I’d rather let people keep their own opinions and let God sort it out, if necessary.

Anyway, always glad to see new voices around here. Just remember you’re the guest (just like me).

Adam, it is a bit presumptuous of you to come here and tell us to change the blog to suit your liking. Of course you are welcome to create your own blog and choose options A-D, but coming here and telling us to change it to suit you, after we’ve been here for close to a decade seems a bit odd, don’t you think?

Can I come to your house and tell you how to run things? I’d like a pizza or steak dinner each night. Keep the temp at 75 degrees winter and summer, and be sure to keep the fridge stocked with ginger ale for me so I can get it anytime I want, day or night. And don’t ever yell at your kids.

Most new readers lurk for a while before commenting, but of course we always welcome everyone. If you like our blog, you’re welcome to stay. If not, we won’t feel bad if you decide to start your own blog or join another to your liking. The bloggernacle is a big place. Nobody is forced to comment here. People come and go all the time. But we don’t take so kindly to a squatter coming here and telling us how to run the place. I doubt you would like me doing that in your home either.

Don’t get me wrong, we do take suggestions, but you’ve got to develop some street cred: 2 weeks of commenting exclusively on polygamy posts doesn’t make you a regular customer. Our blog was never intended to orbit around you. You’re welcome to stay or leave. Just FYI, Wheat & Tares has always been much more open than other blogs. We have a very light moderation policy, and have kicked out maybe a half dozen people over the past 7 years. You can get banned much easier at places like BCC, T&S, and M*. People who come here understand that we’re pretty open to things. We have no control over whether you choose to stay or go, but if you start making a nuisance of yourself, we might encourage you to visit some other blogs.

So once again Adam, welcome. Just don’t wear out your welcome.

(One other point. A sample size of 4 is hardly representative. I get likes and dislikes all the time.)

” I would assume he would claim there was nothing wrong with impregnating a wife not named Emma ” He might not, but Emma certainly would see something wrong with it. Joseph walked a fine line with keeping her happy. I have no idea if JS intentionally avoided pregnancy with his other wives. If he did, I could see him doing so in order to appease Emma (and/or keep his other women hidden from her).

Adam, might I suggest hanging around for a few years, getting to know the regular posters, writing a few guest posts, and THEN making suggestions for changes? It’s either very ballsy or very immature to do so on your 2nd/3rd? day.

I can imagine that male or female scholars could find Mormon polygamy fascinating. And I think a female scholar who is interested in writing fairly, but, most importantly – kindly and “faithfully” – about Mormon polygamy will be highly sought-after by the church.

But many of us don’t believe biblical- style, JS-style, BY- style, Muslim-style, any-style polygamy is godly (even if can allow that the participants think it is), and have just a few short years left to reteach our children and repair the damage to our own psyches. The apologetic/academic world is far from our thoughts. Stack up ten female LDS full professors at prestigious institutions writing about Mormon polygamy. Okay, but this is between me and my God. I’m getting reacquainted with the One who loves women no less than the “kingdom” their babies build.

It’s nice to know that Brian Hales doesn’t like polygamy. But, really, does it matter? As far as we can tell, the church does. We know and love these good men, but what to make of the silence? I don’t know.

Has the church, or any of its spokespeople, said otherwise? Has it said, in unequivocal terms, that mortal polygamy is over? Do leaders know that girls still think about this, still talk about it, still get messages from the culture and curriculum that keep them on edge? My brilliant niece just talked about it last weekend. The world should be her oyster, but she says things like, “It wouldn’t be my first choice, but…” – followed by a lowly expression of willingness to obey.

I’m amazed at the energy expended on this subject. Is there any end in sight? Are we about to turn a corner, where people say, “Oh, now I see. This sounds like God’s doing to me, and I want to associate myself and my family with the people who insist it was.” Especially when there’s no statement that it’s over – and I mean OVER, not just the toggle-switch set to off.

I can’t fathom why the church didn’t take the opportunity in the essays to start distancing us from this. It could have been done with integrity and generosity for all. They chose to pack that burden back onto LDS women, but some of us aren’t picking it up.

These posts of mine end up over-wrought because of intense conflicting emotions. I’ve made a commitment to be kinder, but can only go so far when my kids are involved.

Someone commented about the possibility of Joseph using the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy–Elisabeth, was that you? It’s so far back up there because of huge Adam comments I gave up searching. But, I digress.

I think it was also mentioned that abortionistic herbs may have been sought. I’ve read that Bennett was an actual abortionist for when “he got one of his girls in trouble again.” That was from Sarah Pratt–you can read about abortions in Nauvoo at mormonpolygamydocuments.org. Fair Mormon says it’s hearsay and can’t be taken as truth. Yet FM and our leaders and correlation committee use others’ journals to relate positive things said about the church and its leaders. I guess nice hearsay is true and ugly hearsay is just lies. If God said in Jacob 2 that polygamy was to raise up a righteous seed unto him, where was the angel and flaming sword rebuking Joseph for “abstinence” and/or birth control, including possible abortions? Wouldn’t the Lord have asked Joseph if he feared Emma more than God?

And why would God hurt so many of his righteous daughters so badly for so long, even to this day?

I’m with Ruth…..it doesn’t really matter if Brian Hales or any of us dislike polygamy cause the church does, and that is a bitter truth to suffer.

There are also many types of sex that do not involve vaginal penetration and therefore cannot result in pregnancy. Let’s not pretend that they 1800s were some weird society that were unaware of this. I would imagine that in a world with less effective birth control methods, the people of this time were MUCH more versed in creative ways to prevent a pregnancy than we are today (out of sheer necessity). This is why the argument that Joseph could not have had sex with other women than Emma because he didn’t father any children with them holds absolutely no water for me.

Ruth, “I can’t fathom why the church didn’t take the opportunity in the essays to start distancing us from this.” Like Angela has said, many leaders don’t *want* to cut ties with polygamy because they are anticipating being with two wives in the eternities. From this year’s updated GD manual: “Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who remarried after his first wife died, explained that although we do not know everything about the eternities, we do know that if we are faithful, our temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature…” It is not a coincidence that the Revelations in Context chapter on Section 132 puts it in the context of widows and widowers finding joy in being sealed for eternity to their previous spouses.

Sometimes I wonder why the Lord doesn’t give more revelation for things that greatly trouble so many people. In the early days of the church when members were troubled by something Joseph would inquire of the Lord and receive revelation pertaining to the matter of concern.

Do our prophets inquire of the Lord? I have always believed so. Yes, I have always believed that. It seems like the Lord could clear up many concerns, such as: there will be tons more women in the CK so plural marriage is a must; or it takes a lot of wives to populate a planet; or men are by nature in need of variety so variety is their heavenly reward for righteous living; or my sons are extra important to me so I give them many wives; or women are created for men and must find their joy in serving them; and of particular concern–I haven’t revealed more about Heavenly Mother because there are millions of them.I’ve heard all these things often in my life–in talks, lessons, council meetings, and firesides.

With all my soul I ask–why is God so silent now? Are we today so much more unrighteousness and unworthy compared to Joseph’s time that he won’t even speak to us? Are our concerns of so little importance that anguish does not move him to reveal specific further light and wisdom?

I wish I knew too. Because the only answer I can come up with is that He was always silent on this matter and the listening that became the folklore you listed above has nothing to do with Him (including in what we sometimes have canonized as Revelation).

Ruth, “I can’t fathom why the church didn’t take the opportunity in the essays to start distancing us from this.” Like Angela has said, many leaders don’t *want* to cut ties with polygamy because they are anticipating being with two wives in the eternities. From this year’s updated GD manual: “Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who remarried after his first wife died, explained that although we do not know everything about the eternities, we do know that if we are faithful, our temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature…” It is not a coincidence that the Revelations in Context chapter on Section 132 puts it in the context of widows and widowers finding joy in being sealed for eternity to their previous spouses.”

I’m flabbergasted by all the ways we uphold the polygamy status quo. Not clearly drawing a lines between today’s women and girls and yesterday’s is one. Not a peep about coercion and manipulation being wrong. Oft-stated gripes.

But the weird unwillingness to address the sealing issues for today’s remarried men AND women is also mind-boggling. Is it really their belief that God will treat men who have married and loved more than one woman in their lifetimes differently than women who have married and loved more than one man?

Polygamy past, present and future are reenforcing everything negative, illogical and sexist about the whole practice.

I have a hard time believing this is their intent, but here we are. I would love to know if this is being discussed amongst top leaders. I can only see it creating more drag, and it’s so unnecessary.

“But the weird unwillingness to address the sealing issues for today’s remarried men AND women is also mind-boggling. Is it really their belief that God will treat men who have married and loved more than one woman in their lifetimes differently than women who have married and loved more than one man?”
Well quite. It all looks too much like women as property to me.